Cosmetic testicles

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:48:58 GMT

I don't usually like to use the 'slippery slope' argument but I do think that it is relevant in this case. Testicular implants bring no benefit to the dog and so must be considered simply cosmetic. If we use the 'but it doesn't cause harm either' comment then where does it stop? In the USA they use implants to make Doberman ears prick up,metal caps on the teeth of guard dogs and declaw cats when they are neutered. They could all be argued to 'improve' the pets life by making the owners happier......hmmmmmm......but unlike other elective procedures like neutering, there is no benefit whatsoever to the pet!

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:39:40 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]Question of curiosity here then, as a "practicing abroad" MRCVS would this prohibit me from putting in neuticles, even though the country I practice in (Australia) they are legal. [/quote]

Interesting point - although I think largely academic. As an MRCVS (no matter which list you are on including overseas or retired) you are fully subject to the RCVS Code of Conduct and disciplinary system. However as a general rule the RCVS would expect you to follow the ethical code of the regulator of the jurisdiction in which you practice. If you were found guilty of disgraceful conduct abroad then you are required to report that to the RCVS on your annual renewal plus the overseas authority will contact the RCVS. The Registrar would then take a view as whether the matter was serious enough for there to be public interest in referring the matter to the PIC (or otherwise). More likely this might become an issue if you sought to transfer back to the home practising register.

The neuticals issues forms part of the College's 'guidance' rather than the 'Code' so my understanding is that you could implant them in Australia if the regulator of the jurisdiction you are registered with permits this - just as for example you can dock puppies in England (under strict restrictions) but not in some other parts of the UK. If you are acting legally and within the Code of your local regulator then there can be no finding of misconduct against you there - and therefore no subsequent complaint to the RCVS by them.

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]In regards to the ethics I don't think they are inherently unethical[/quote]

I think the point is that the RCVS HAS decided that they are unethical (and as far as I know that has been the position for a decade or more). If there are good counter arguments then the matter should be raised by writing to the RCVS Standards Committee and asking them to reconsider the issue.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:26:16 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]

Question of curiosity here then, as a "practicing abroad" MRCVS would this prohibit me from putting in neuticles, even though the country I practice in (Australia) they are legal.

[/quote]

No.

I've always believed that the ethics of it were just to do with cheating in shows.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Tony Knapp — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:38:02 GMT

Question of curiosity here then, as a "practicing abroad" MRCVS would this prohibit me from putting in neuticles, even though the country I practice in (Australia) they are legal.

In regards to the ethics I don't think they are inherently unethical, it doesn't appear to change the castration surgery too dramatically and that surgery should be accompanied with pain relief anyway; and if they encourage more owners to castrate their dogs it could be argued to be a good thing, although personally I think it is a waste of money.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Bibs — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:07:16 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]

I think if the owner of a dog wants to come in and have her dog castrated and signs the consent form then who are we to say no. It's between her and her husband what she chooses to hide from him.

[/quote]

If you've never had a discussion with the husband on the subject, and the wife doesn't tell you that the husband doesn't want the dog castrated, then I would agree with you. However if you know that the dog is jointly owned, and one of the dog's owners has made it very clear to you that they don't want the procedure carried out, then I think you could be in a lot of trouble.

[/quote]

I'm not saying I would feel comfortable with it or even do it if I had a recent discussion where it was made very clear what the other half thought. If one wanted an op and the other clearly didn't then I might be inclined to phone the VDS for advice and I would take no part in any dishonesty but I can't quite see how it would be legally + technically wrong to do the op if one of the owner's brings it in and asks for it do be done. It gets too complicated otherwise....how much time would have to pass since you spoke to husband before his opinion would not longer be taken into account?

This whole story just gets up my nose because the husband sounds like an idiot but seems to have ultimate authority and has to be tricked for the right thing to be done because the wife can't tell him.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:43:02 GMT

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]

I think if the owner of a dog wants to come in and have her dog castrated and signs the consent form then who are we to say no. It's between her and her husband what she chooses to hide from him.

[/quote]

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Tim Browning — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:00:01 GMT

The first euthanasia I performed, on day one when newly qualified, was a GSD that the wife had brought in for 'biting'. Everything was signed properly but I was unaware this was her husband's dog who had just left the wife for another woman. It was a revenge killing.

Getting things signed is essential, but doesn't stop the flak when a faecal/fan interaction occurs. In this case the boss knew the husband's wishes.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Glen McIntosh — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:56:55 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]And what of the justice ethic? If the act causes no problems for the dog but leads to more status dogs behind castrated, is it not actually ethically justified to offer it (rather than not)?[/quote]

Not that I have particularly strong views either way, being basically neutral with regards neuticles, I must say I find David's argument compelling.

I was vaguely aware when working in the UK that these implants were banned in the UK, I have never been asked to perform the op, so I was surprised to see on my return to Australia, a television show called the "bondi vet" that had an episode almost entirely devoted to the procedure, and the procedure was portrayed in a very positive, almost jovial, light.

It got me wondering, why on earth does the RCVS think these implants are unethical?

Richards explanation:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Good point - the ban on 'neuticles' in the UK is fairly old and certainly predates my time on Council. However my understanding is that the main concern is that dogs can stray, be rehomed, etc and that the animal is then subject to a second surgery to 'castrate' it or explore what is in the scrotum (as in the case described by Arlo) on the mistaken assumption there is a tumour present. [/quote]

- and while I have no doubt Richard's report is correct - it seems like a bit of a stretch in ethical reasoning, and doesn't immediately appear to fit with other RCVS bans like declawing, dew claw removal or tail docking for example, and I am not sure it defeats David's argument.

With regards to Richard's explanation as to why other cosmetic procedures such as eye prosthesis are acceptable to the RCVS:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]That is obviously not the case with an eye implant as it is immediately apparent what it is. I have seen them used in horses occasionally and you are left in no doubt that a prosthesis is present.[/quote]

In my experience, prosthetic eye implants in dogs and cats (at least the ones performed by our ophthalmologists where the implant is inserted into the dog's original and intact globe) are not always immediately apparent, at least not without a proper ophthalmologic examination.

And while I certainly won't be agitating for a petition to change the RCVS position on the matter, I am also not shocked or appalled by Australian and US veterinarian's sanguine approach to the issue.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Bibs — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:39:42 GMT

I think if the owner of a dog wants to come in and have her dog castrated and signs the consent form then who are we to say no. It's between her and her husband what she chooses to hide from him.

I can't imagine telling a client I wont castrate her dog unless her husband comes in and signs a form as-well. Where it gets iffy is that she has asked for the vet to take part in the cover up and "pretend" that he is still entire during future check ups.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Robin Grimmer — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:50:44 GMT

Engaging with the wife in this sort of deception is something the RCVS would look very dimly upon should it ever come out. I can imagine reading this in the VDS newsletter! The fact that you have a signed consent form by the wife is neither here nor there. I'm sure a lawyer could argue that the vet had full knowledge of the husband's wishes and that this was done deliberately behind his back. Plus the husband still thinks the vet is useless as he feels vindicated that the dog didn't need castration after all!

Re: Cosmetic testicles

An On MRCVS — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:48:44 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]

Wow. That's going to get messy if the husband ever finds out - that's the kind of case that has a message on the record card to say 'ONLY BOOK IN FOR THE BOSS' just in case someone lets slip!

[/quote]

I don't think there would be a problem. The wife has signed the consent form (a copy is still held in the boss' safe!) and so if anything, the buck stops with her! In terms of other people/staff/vets finding out - this is written all over the dogs notes! I guess if the owner had a copy of the notes for any other reasons (insurance etc) he would find out - but surely they can say the wife gave permission?

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Anthony Dennison — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:57:50 GMT

Wow. That's going to get messy if the husband ever finds out - that's the kind of case that has a message on the record card to say 'ONLY BOOK IN FOR THE BOSS' just in case someone lets slip!

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Tim Browning — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:41:02 GMT

Wow some people like living dangerously! Bargepole wouldn't be long enough to touch this situation for me

Re: Cosmetic testicles

An On MRCVS — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:02:33 GMT

I am posting "Anon" for obvious reasons. This is worth reading all the way through...

I worked in a practice in England for a few years about 12 years ago. We had a couple with an entire male Rottie that was young and showing all the worrying traits of becoming a dominant aggressive. He really was not a nice dog.

At 10m old we had the discussion that castration really should form the backbone of behaviour training. The wife was understanding and keen and the husband (typical) hit the roof like I have never seen. He was furious that we take away his dogs "masculinity". Over the next few weeks there were several repeat visits, a referral to a behaviourist (same advice) to no avail. The husband was categorically against it.

Things went quiet for a bit - and the wife came to see my boss on her own, saying that her husband was going to be away in the US for 3m and if she bought the Neuticles could be get the dog castrated, implanted and everything healed by the time he came back so he wouldn't know!

Boss agreed and once the husband was dropped at the airport - dog was in having his bits off and the previously measured Neuticles put in. I am not sure of the technique - but boss said was pretty easy and just popped each on in each side of the scrotum.

Dog healed really well and once the sutures were out we heard nothing for about 8 months.

Then we got a snotty letter from the husband wanting his money back from previous consults as the dog had settled down beautifully without our "butchery" and "quack behaviour advice" but the following day we got a sneaky letter from the wife - apologising for the letter and thanking us profusely for our candor.

I left that practice soon after - but coincidentally bumped into my boss a few months back and asked about this dog - it comes in once a year for his jabs and is one of the nicest Rotties he sees. The husband STILL bangs on it and the wife just keeps quiet and looks sheepish. My boss says he still finds it hard to keep a straight face when palpating them for any "changes"....

Ethically I personally am not that keen - but this situation I feel the procedure was correct. I think it prevented suffering by either the dog biting/attacking someone, and also possibly ending up rehomed once he had properly turned into a nasty bugger.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Tim Charlesworth — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:55:37 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Tim Charlesworth"]Hi Arlo, I've been asked 3-4 times to put these in and have declined for obvious reasons. A couple of owners got a bit shirty but they calmed down when I told them how much the implants cost..[/quote]

Hi Tim, Why did the owners want them?

Unless any objections, I'll pass this thread on to Beverley / Dogs Today with names / identities removed.

[/quote]

I didn't even ask, I just said no (like the Grange Hill Song),

Tim

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:32:28 GMT

Hi Tim, Why did the owners want them?

Unless any objections, I'll pass this thread on to Beverley / Dogs Today with names / identities removed.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Tim Charlesworth — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:07:57 GMT

Hi Arlo, I've been asked 3-4 times to put these in and have declined for obvious reasons. A couple of owners got a bit shirty but they calmed down when I told them how much the implants cost..

Tim

Re: Cosmetic testicles

bob lehner — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:14:40 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"]

Perhaps the same sort of pet-owner that pays for breast-implants for their wife??

[/quote]

Well I guess here in Essex we'd get all the Katie Price-clone owners coming back repeatedly demanding bigger and bigger implants for their staffies.

You'd end up with the canine equivalent of Buster Gonad of Viz fame.

(Is Viz still going - haven't seen it since my kids were in their teens ?).

Re: Cosmetic testicles

John Flynn — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:22:27 GMT

At risk of major aside more suited to a separate thread on the ethics of various surgical intervention in dogs...

[quote user="David Mills"]And what of aural haematomas?[/quote]

I personally think a fair few of these are benficial to "treat" in that their appearance suggests that to leave them to scar will narrow the opening of the ear canal in a dog that may be predisposed to otitis already.

If they are in the pinnal tip and clearly of no concern, then I'm less sure if intervening is warranted, but on the basis that they may be uncomfortable I feel justified in EMLA cream and draining once (or ignoring depending on patient).

[quote user="David Mills"] indeed papers have been published on this very subject, discussed on here, about maintaining cosmetic appearance[/quote]

I am always surprised by the degree of surgical publications discussing cosmesis such as how the pinna looks after TECA-LBO as if I cared, but each to their own and if the achievement of a more cosmetic result is in no way clinically inferior then I don't have a problem, though am unlikely to expend extra effort (if it is required) myself to this end. I guess it's no weirder than dog-breeding.

[quote user="David Mills"]Arguably, also, cherry eye?[/quote]

I've always been intruiged by this one! My current conclusion is that the complete excision of the "cherry" in the absence of discomfort or visual impairment is *probably* not warranted (but neither do I consider it particularly heinious), while the partial excision or replacement is *probably* warranted.

[quote user="David Mills"] I think it only truly holds if the act is purely for cosmetic reasons, not in injunction with another (beneficial?) op.[/quote]

leaving aside the question of whether castration is beneficial...

I can see an argument that societal prohibition of purely cosmetic procedures in pets could be beneficial in recognising the pet's worth as an individual and not an object - i.e. from an "Animal Rights" framework cosmetic considerations could be purely unethical in their own right (of course so might be keeping a pet in the first place... )

Thinking in a bigger, more vague, box, there may also be ethical considerations regarding the use of such implants relating to the environmental impact of their production, supply and implantation. i.e. the use of implants could be considered unethical simply because they are unecessary if you belong to the "buy-less-crap"-type of worldview.

[quote user="David Mills"] If the act {causes no problems for the dog}=1 but {leads to more status dogs behind castrated}=2, is it not actually ethically justified to offer it (rather than not)?[/quote]

I suspect you're thinking out-loud, but I think I would need evidence of premises 1 & 2, as well as a local analysis of the benefit of premise 2 and the potential knock-on effects ethically of condoning it before shifting position. I would personally be concerned about the message this gave as to the status of a pet dog and one's responsibilities/rights towards it.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

David Mills — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:46:35 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"]Out of curiostiy, where has the line been drawn in the ethical sand such that this procedure is banned while prosthetic eyeballs are apparently (from searching UK referral clinics) fine?[/quote]

Mr Flynn beat me to it.

It is very easy to band about 'ethical' just as politicians band about 'racist' without any consideration for the underlying ethical arguments.

Does it affect the dog? No, unless the operation is specifically to implant the testes rather than in combination with castration. The assumption that it would lead to complications is nothing but guesswork. I would suspect complication rate would be less than with a 'normal' castrate - possibly less with the reduction in post op scrotal seroma?

Is the argument that it is 'cosmetic' valid? Well, possibly. However, as Mr Flynn points out, false eyeballs are used. And what of aural haematomas? These are for the most part purely cosmetic - indeed papers have been published on this very subject, discussed on here, about maintaining cosmetic appearance. Arguably, also, cherry eye? I think it only truly holds if the act is purely for cosmetic reasons, not in injunction with another (beneficial?) op.

And what of the justice ethic? If the act causes no problems for the dog but leads to more status dogs behind castrated, is it not actually ethically justified to offer it (rather than not)?

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:40:19 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"]

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The RCVS has indeed issued guidance that implantation of 'neuticles' (false testicles) is unethical and should not be done (anywhere) by an MRCVS.[/quote]

Out of curiostiy, where has the line been drawn in the ethical sand such that this procedure is banned while prosthetic eyeballs are apparently (from searching UK referral clinics) fine?

[/quote]

Good point - the ban on 'neuticles' in the UK is fairly old and certainly predates my time on Council. However my understanding is that the main concern is that dogs can stray, be rehomed, etc and that the animal is then subject to a second surgery to 'castrate' it or explore what is in the scrotum (as in the case described by Arlo) on the mistaken assumption there is a tumour present. That is obviously not the case with an eye implant as it is immediately apparent what it is. I have seen them used in horses occasionally and you are left in no doubt that a prosthesis is present.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

John Flynn — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:45:11 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The RCVS has indeed issued guidance that implantation of 'neuticles' (false testicles) is unethical and should not be done (anywhere) by an MRCVS.[/quote]

Out of curiostiy, where has the line been drawn in the ethical sand such that this procedure is banned while prosthetic eyeballs are apparently (from searching UK referral clinics) fine?

I quote from the website of one leading UK referral centre:

"...In some dogs, a black silicone implant can be placed inside the eye itself, to create a more cosmetic effect. However it is most important to understand that the cosmetic benefit is for you, the owner, and your family and not for your pet... The healing time following placement of an intrascleral prosthesis is longer than for a routine enucleation as your pet will need eye ointment for two to three weeks after the surgery... If you would like further information about this option, please ask your veterinary ophthalmologist."

Re: Cosmetic testicles

John Flynn — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:34:22 GMT

Never heard of this, but laughed hard when I realised it wasn't a wind-up, has lightened up my day

Perhaps the same sort of pet-owner that pays for breast-implants for their wife??

All the world's a little queer bar thee and me, and even thee's a little strange.

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Robin Grimmer — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:26:13 GMT

Cosmetic testicles... great name for a band!

Re: Cosmetic testicles

Bibs — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:11:34 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Elizabeth Billimore"]I can't see how fake testicles would help the dog.[/quote]

Must say, I struggled with that. I presume it's something done to show dogs that are deficient in that department?

[/quote] There is an episode of Bondi Vet (I don't watch it regularly, honest), where the vet castrates a bulldog and puts in some neuticles. The reason is because the owner's boyfriend likes the way the dog's "danglies" look and doesn't really want him castrated. It's all about the macho appearance. It might not cause any extra pain on top of the neutering but I would have thought there would be some increased risk of complications / infection because you are placing an implant. I'm guessing at least a few end up being removed (in the same way that breast implants can have complications).